• Secure your account

    A friendly reminder to our users, please make sure your account is safe. Make sure you update your password and have an active email address to recover or change your password.

  • Xenforo Cloud has scheduled an upgrade to XenForo version 2.2.16. This will take place on or shortly after the following date and time: Jul 05, 2024 at 05:00 PM (PT) There shouldn't be any downtime, as it's just a maintenance release. More info here

Zach Braff's Garden State follow-up

Was Garden State really that much of a fan favorite?
 
the problem here is that its an original movie and the guy has millions. he has the money
 
I love Garden State, so naturally I'm looking forward to this. :)
 
I love Garden State, so naturally I'm looking forward to this. :)

But are you willing to pay to make it that's the question? I think this might be the beginning of the dark side of the "kickstarter craze" that the veronica mars project may have started.

I just feel it's borderline if not blatantly selfish for a millionaire to ask his fans to fund his movie. It's one thing if a struggling artist is turning to kickstarter but for established celebrities?

This also opens up a whole new can of worms for the funders being "producers" technically, yet seeing absolutely no cut of the gross assuming the movie becomes financially successful.
 
i have no problem with it. he is putting his own money into it, and it's not like he's forcing people to donate money. if you don't like it, don't donate, it's that simple.
 
Yeah, I didn't see what the big deal was until I read that he already had a deal to make the movie then scoffed at the terms.

You make one good movie, and now he thinks he should have free-reign to do whatever he likes.

He didn't turn to Kickstarter to fund the movie, he turned to it so he wouldn't have to answer to anyone.
 
Of course people can do what ever they want to do with their own money i can still call it out if i think it's a silly endeavor.

I just see other celebrities turning to kick-starter into exploitative ways down the line. Also as the post above me notes in the old days you used to have to work your way to get to the point where you deserve a say in final-cut in all instances. Someone who's made 1 ok film in 10 years isn't at that level yet.
 
People can do whatever they want with their money. Some idiots pay to watch movies like Pirates of the Caribbean 4.

I'm not the biggest fan of Zach Braff but he's got my one dollar and I'm totally fine with that.
 
Garden State (and Closer) was the film that made people see Natalie Portman in a new light, especially after her wooden performance in the prequels. Not her fault of course.

But Garden State has a slight culutral touchstone in that regard. However, it hasn't stay in our pop consciousness for too long. Unlike movies like The Big Lewbowski or American Psycho.
 
Interesting fact Garden State is the only movie that I've fallen asleep while watching.
 
Natalie Portman is the only thing keeping me motivated to continue trying to watch that flick. She's great in it, but last couple times I tried to watch I couldn't get through it. Flick hasn't aged well for me at all. Really liked it when it came out though.
 
Last edited:
Of course people can do what ever they want to do with their own money i can still call it out if i think it's a silly endeavor.

I just see other celebrities turning to kick-starter into exploitative ways down the line. Also as the post above me notes in the old days you used to have to work your way to get to the point where you deserve a say in final-cut in all instances. Someone who's made 1 ok film in 10 years isn't at that level yet.

Thank you. It's the principle of the matter. Yes, we know people can do whatever they want with it, and good for you for supporting a film with your money. But it's pretty amazing these millionaires have the nerve to stand in front of a camera to ask people for their money when they have the means to do it themselves. Veronica Mars for $3 million? With all those actors, especially Kristen Bell can't somehow pool their money together and get that amount. Don't worry, they'll still be able to eat.

Another problem is studios are seeing this as a loophole. This is free money for them that they don't have to worry about investing it.

The fundamental goal of Kickstarter is for filmmakers who don't have the money to make their films. and I'm not talking about $3 million, I'm talking anywhere in the thousands even. And sure you can make the argument that it gains more attention to Kickstarter, but who is the donor more likely to contribute to? A reputable name like Zack Braff, Spike Lee or little old me who no one has heard of but wants to make movies yet doesn't have the means to do it? An investor is more likely to contribute to someone they can trust. That was never even an issue before these bigger names were brought in. But it is now.

The problem is the whole idea of Kickstarter is now starting to become something it wasn't suppose to be. Kickstarter can say all they want how they want everyone to be included, big or small. But they don't give a **** anyway because they get a percentage of the funds. So why would they stop them?

Oh, and did I forget to mention this film was picked up pretty fast by a financer?
 
Last edited:
^ That, in a nutshell is why I loathe Faraci. It's not that he's not right, it's just so hypocritical.

Spending that much effort to complain about people making movies that deal with "First world problems" and lamenting over how embarrassed you were that you liked a 2004 movie is a perfect demonstration of someone being whiny about said first world problems.

Never liked Garden State btw.
 
Last edited:
i am 50/50 on the article.

the article reminded me that Braff got the money from kickstarter. in the name of .....
 
Yeah, that's ridiculous. But Faraci has a way of taking a reasonable stance and making it unbearably annoying.
 
Faraci is compelling because he IS a hypocrite. That's why I still read him. As smart as he is, he's not as initiative as he thinks he is.

For example, I think his stance on nerdom is weird. He's proud of being a nerd (esp with Star Trek and Apes) but he'll bash people who like..let's say Batman or Star Wars. Or for a while, he moaned about Brown Coats (Firefly fans) or trashing anime. Isn't that weird though? A nerd being judgmental about the tastes of other nerds? There's a certain amount of self-loathing that goes beyond the geek stuff he talks about; something deep seeded. THEN he'll fight for the right for nerds at Comic Con being themselves, and hating how Hollywood took over the convention. He goes back and forth on the subject. He'll defend nerds, and then act snarky on their tastes. I don't get it sometimes.
 
Another good example is when Star Wars 7 released its' casting, and people cried fowl when there is a lack of women in the cast. The guys from Slashfilm.com was right from the get-go: The outrage machine turned on, even though we don't know a darn thing about the film, or know if that's the complete cast.

Diversity is a great thing. Sure I want more female roles that doesn't regulate them to victims or love interests. But calm down, Internet.

Devin was so gung-ho about it, then many of his peers shut him down on twitter, telling him that it's not so much about feminism that he was fight for. But rather, Devin singling out JJ Abrams because Devin doesn't like the dude. Think about it. Devin being a fan of Apes didn't bash 'Dawn' due its lack of strong female characters. Then why single out Star Wars?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,688
Messages
21,787,558
Members
45,616
Latest member
stevezorz
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"